Yes. Can't speak for every airline but that is the rules in Australia. Now you have options within that like using a SLAM plus the TTF for arrival, but if it changes to Fog at 100m then you will either have to have a alternate, or enough holding for the FM period commencement. I believe that is where one of the Qantas incidents got caught. The TTF had it clearing up but it didn't.

Don't know why Australia has a ceiling requirement.

The only solution to all this would be to have European styled rules with compulsory alternates at planning stage and CAT IIIB at all capital cities. That way you could carry on and have a go at the Autoland.

However in Australia that would a very expensive solution and never get passed by the airlines which is why we have the no alternate rules. Some CAT III gear would take the stress out though.

I'm not fully conversant with the AIP but is there a statement that says once airborne and the weather at destination is below alternate minima but above approach minima, an alternate is required. I don't recall a statement that says this. It sounds like good practice, except for having to comply with a ceiling when an ILS is available and if your destination is a place like ADL with no available alternates and the weather changes, you go from being legally dispatched to illegally airborne and there is nothing that the operator could have done.

That's the question CASA asked its own FOI's in relation to the Norfolk ditching and 50% said yes and the other said no. So again if the equipment at ADL was able to support CATIIIB the crews could have legally continued and landed. I also would like to know if QF have MIA as a suitable or alternate in their FAM for the 737 operation?

No. If you got the TTF that had Fog on it at the time you were landing you have to either recalculate from that point to ADL and then to a alternate or recalculate your position to ADL and then to the FM period that it improves.

Or divert straight away.

If you can't do any of that you then have to declare a PAN and do whatever works.

For CAT III to work we will have to have compulsory alternates. Until Australia brings that in CAT III won't do much.

What if you don't have the TTF? We will have to wait and see what the time line shows but there is no requirement to update TTF's if you departed with a valid TAF. If the crew considered that the safer option was to continue to ADL (if it had CAT III) rather than to divert to an airport OCTA and that they were unfamiliar with then they would be ok.

Reality is you would be given the update through ATC so even if you didn't go looking for it you would end up with a new TAF. As soon as that happens you would have to do some recalculations.

There is also a requirement to have the most current TAF on you if you can't get or use the TTF.

Cat 3b would have allowed a safe approach and landing in the event described at ADL. Compared to what transpired it would have been a much better outcome. There would in fact be no emergency Nev. A report to CASA maybe. Under the EU OPS policy that dictates an alternate for most flights, an alternate is not required when the weather is better than 1000/2.5k and the dest has separate runways for sectors less than six hours. The same crew could have been caught out with the weather change but they would have had a legal approach to fly. I think we need 3b for all our major commercial ports.

Sorry to be a pain Nev, but what statement in the AIP says you require an alternate if the weather is below alt mins but above approach mins once airborne.

I used Jepps ATC section 3.

Nev, can you please post the exact wording and section reference, my Jepp ATC (AU) lists exactly the same requirements as the AIP, nothing about once airborne landing minima applies.

The bit about arrival at a aerodrome will be during a period where cloud or viz is below the alternate minima. Then it goes on to the bit about INTER TEMPO TTFs etc....

Are you guys saying that once airborne the Alternate requirements don't apply?

Have a look at AU-515 Sect 11 In-Flight Fuel Management and see if that might have applied if a CatIIIB ILS was available. Like you Nev I always thought the alternate considerations applied at all stages of flight but now I see that it is a grey area and that once you are in the air, as long as you meet the requirements of the above section, then you do what you consider safe.

Ernestkgann, The AIP and Jepp's are only a summary of the regulatory rules, the actual rule document is best used for reference.

You ask where this requirement for inflight alternate airport is?

The rule/regs for an airline operation require... "Each holder of an air operator certificate to establish a fuel policy for both flight planning and inflight requirements..."

Every "air operator" has their approved exposition (manuals) which contains the company fuel policy.

The rule/regs for airline operations, require the inflight fuel to include reserves to cover operation at all times....

To comply with this, the operators exposition's use's the aerodrome alternate requirements or special alternate requirements as a trigger for the inflight fuel policy.

Refer to the rule/reg for... "Air Operations" - for further guidance.

Rgs

I agree completely cobber which is why I asked earlier does the company ops manual dictate the requirement for an alternate under those circumstances. I don't believe the regulatory pub does.

Some slow learners hereabouts Ernie!

My company manual states that once airborne landing minima shall be used.
If your company chooses not to clarify/supplement the regs then it can get messy when the SHTF.

Ok, I'll bite.

The AIP provisions for alternate airfields make no distinction between planning and in-flight cases. Therefore, I believe a straightforward interpretation is that the provisions apply for all stages of a flight.

Ref: Jepps AGA Sect 3 para 3.2.1

Nothing about planning, just "operating" and "when arrival at the destination will be..."

Cheers,
O8

Thanks Oktas. Does it also state the approach minimums during those conditions ie the difference between landing and alternate minimums?

No. All the operational requirements are based on alternate minima, which is clearly stated. The term "landing minima" is not used in this context.

(Which I find odd btw. How can one be allowed to proceed to an airfield which is forecast to be closed due weather upon arrival? Private ops, sure, but not air transport ops. But I digress.)

I agree with oktas 8 and I dont see how 515 makes it confusing. Its not like that section can overrule another anyway. What CASA approves QF/VA to do is another matter entirely.

If the WX is below the SLAM or alternate minima you need a plan B!

our company fuel policy approved by CASA

16.5 Inflight Fuel Requirements

16.5.1 Minimum Mandatory Requirements - All Engine operating

Dot point 7...

(an Alternate Airport, following an approach and missed approach at the destination, if the destination requires an alternate.)

Pretty clear to me, if wx at destination drops below alternate requirements inflight, you need to either ensure you have an alternate following missed approach at destination or re-plan to new destination at the point when advised of wx below alternate requirements. If this is not available a decision would be made to proceed to the safest airport option and file the subsequent incident report.

Interesting what Shot Nancy mentions about there companies inflight fuel policy. Shot what is the wording used in the (Minimum Inflight Fuel Requirements) of your company manual?

Rgs

Dear mangatete et al,
My companies SOPs regarding fuel requirements are quite extensive and the use of landing minima once airborne is only one factor.
I don’t want to denigrate any of the crews involved but I think there is a lot to discuss here.
Especially with regard to:
Reliability, accuracy and therefore use of TAFs, TTFs and auto METARs,
Company alternate requirements,
Single runway destinations,
CATI destinations,
CATIII ops requiring an alternate and
Company requirement to source most current weather.

I believe the crew followed all the rules specified by the company. The bolding is mine. I wonder what improvements have been made in the last 9 years?

I heard a conversation one morning last year between ATC and a jet tracking to an airport with deteriorating weather. The ATCO asked the jet pilot if they had the latest weather (TAF & TTF), to which they replied 'no'. Later the pilot asked ATC why the weather hadn't been provided to them earlier. The reply was along the lines of "after 1 hour from departure, our policy is it becomes your company's responsibility to update the crew with forecasts".

Is this really policy at AsA? No saying it was a contributing factor in this incident, but could be in the future if something similar happens.

Ando1bar - not one hour after dep. If you are within 1 hour you get it, otherwise it is company or pilot responsibility - ever since ops control closed down 15 or so years ago. ASA policy is per AIP. ATC continue to be amazed at the number of pilots and companies that don't understand it.
AIP GEN 3.3-3 para 2.1.1
Pilots are responsible for obtaining information necessary to make operational decisions. To ensure that accurate information is obtained in adequate time, pilots must take into consideration that ATC initiated FIS is limited to aircraft within one hours flight time of the condition or destination at time of receipt of the information by ATC.

Haven't been on this site for years now retired and don't miss the BS.

Reading your posts re the B737 into MIA I can't get over the fact that CASA still has it's head up it's large rear aperture why on earth this country doesn't have Cat 3 a,b and c facility is beyond me - fog is no a problem then.

Q. Why in a B737NG (I guess) would you head of to an airport without a precision approach, the a/c is capable just shoot the approach at ADL and be done with and tell CASA to go screw themselves and catch up with the rest of the world.

Having worked for years in Europe with Cat 3C approval flying in extreme conditions became a normal days work during winter.

I believe this is the only 3rd World Country you can drink the water :ugh:

Indeed. But you have actually highlighted the point. Because those extreme conditions are not the norm here, it would be an inefficient use of funds to install and maintain that kind of kit at every capital city.

Over the last 15 or so years the Australian regulations have grown from 155 pages to 2,000 plus MOSs and more to come.

Yet the fundamental stuff still isn't understood at ATPL/airline level.

Australian passengers are very lucky that the benign weather and topography helps to mitigate the risks caused by the third world aviation infrastructure and the confusion and ignorance that results from the amount of regulatory chaff smothering the safety wheat.

Operational Control
 

Operational Control ceased on the 10th of January 1991.

The 1991 March/April Australian Flying contained a good 12 page article about Sydney's Air Traffic Control and the plans for future Air Traffic Control in Australia. There is a few paragraphs about the loss of face to face briefing services and operational control with a quote from a Senior Ops Controller which I think fits this thread.

He says "while most pilots and many ops controllers acknowledge the fact the service is outdated and largely unnecessary, commercial pressures may force pilots to make unsafe decisions.

It's an economic rationalisation, a pilot can do his own operational control if he has all the information; however we are in a better position to access the information without the burden of commercial pressure"

Note:I'm not saying the crews of these aircraft made an unsafe decision.

efff me....22 pages of (Australian narrow minded BS) with lots of if's and but's...please keep it simple...

IF there was no fog on the ADL TAF the crew used for their fuel decision and IF the fog rolled in after dispatch and IF ADL had full CAT3B the only excitement of the day would have been a beautiful autoland and maybe a loooong taxi to find the gate "Delhi style"...that's it.

Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch).

At my home port (HKG) we got CAT3 and we haven't had any fog in 3 years or so - so frequency of weather or lack of doesn't justify not installing the appropriate equipment.

In Australia....in your dreams! Have you actually been reading this thread?

Certainly not in QF who happen to own one of the two aircraft that diverted. I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of the fuel policy or otherwise (that's been done to death in the last code of months).

Alternate criteria applies at the destination preflight and inflight - typically 400'/1600m at an airport with multiple precision approaches. If you hit your PSD - called DPA - and the weather at destination is below alternate criteria, you go to your suitable alternate.

If it deteriorates after DPA, you continue, couple it up and fill out the paperwork.

So, in summary, the QF aircraft was legally required to divert. They diverted and the weather at the alternate deteriorated with unforecast fog after they diverted.

I don't know Virgin's fuel policy and won't comment on their circumstances.

Cpt F,

If your destination is showing on minima you continue, no?


DA,

What are DPA and PSD???

Ok...every company has their own fuel policy but to keep 400ft/1600m even after dispatch doesn't make sense if you got CAT3 facilities on the ground at your destination...common sense dictates that if the skipper can reasonably assure a successful landing you continue.

In other words you are saying that if LHR was showing OVC001/RVR 150m all zones abeam FRA you would divert?

Maybe it's getting a bit late with some work induced jetlag...

Depends on whether you've got an alternate for LHR. If you did, continue. If you didn't, divert.

...and the alternate criteria are based on the same criteria as those as dispatch. We don't dispatch and suddenly ILS minima become the alternate criteria.

Without getting into specifics, if the weather at destination deteriorates below alternate criteria - which is the same inflight as at dispatch (ILS landing minima is irrelevant) - and you don't have fuel at your DPA (decision point - all engines) or PSD (last point of safe diversion or PNR), to proceed to destination, fly an approach and divert to an alternate which is forecast to be above alternate criteria, you divert to an enroute alternate, such as MIA in this case.

Again, without wishing to provide a flight planning lecture, DPA is a point provided preflight which dispatch determines as the last WAYPOINT where a flight may divert to a suitable alternate and land with all reserves intact. Flight crew may further refine that inflight to a slightly later - or possibly earlier - position considering the actual fuel on board to achieve the same end. This is essentially a PNR or PSD depending on the lingo you choose to use.

AQIS, in your example, if you don't have fuel for Gatwick or Manchester or Stansted etc. - which must be forecast above alternate criteria - then you would divert enroute from your DPA or before to Frankfurt or Amsterdam or something similar. The fact destination has CAT3 and conditions are CAT1 is irrelevant in the decision making process unless you have an an alternate from destination.

I thought the policy was pretty simple and sensible. But clearly not.

As I said earlier, I'd love to see CAT3 ILS at all capital city airports in this country. However, its availability at Adelaide wouldn't have changed the outcome for the QF flight in this instance as they would still have been legally required to divert.

Topdrop, thanks for the info and clarification. Most pilots are proactive in updating their weather (as are ATC when workload permits), but not everyone out there is it seems (not talking about the Mildura pilots). Just seems like one less layer of defence if the weather turns bad at the destination shortly after departure and you've still got a couple of hours to run.

I don't understand how 'just coupl(ing) it up' and landing on an unprotected Cat 1 ILS below mins is a suitable and commonly accepted practice and flying away from an ILS to a non-precision environment in the back blocks because you have a 400' ceiling. There is no ceiling in fog (usually) but there might be a couple of thousand metres of vis or RVR. This isn't the approach taken in the rest of the world. I also don't understand how, once dispatched, you can be required to hold a 'legal' alternate airborne. If you plan to an airfield that is above alt mins that goes below mins once airborne and you cannot hold an alternate you're illegal. You can't make fuel in this curious double jeopardy situation.

Steve, I just know I shouldn't do this, but you don't actually believe that **** do you? If you must know, VA diverted first. So there goes your theory right there. I won't go into why they landed first, as that will come out in the investigation. The fog was already in when both a/c landed. Don't believe everything you hear.

Porch Monkey,

You say that Virgin diverted first. Do you know by how much time they were ahead of QF?

Ernest I'm with you, to divert to an alternate and land with less fuel than you would at your destination because of ceiling alone is questionable. If the RVR/VIZ is adequate who cares about ceiling unless you are on a visual or circle?